Morales v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. Travis

260 A.D.2d 710, 687 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3265

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 710 (Morales v. Travis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morales v. Travis, 260 A.D.2d 710, 687 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered September 1, 1998 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner is currently serving a prison term of 15 years to life following his conviction of the crime of murder in the second degree. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of his request for parole release. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm.

It is well settled that the Parole Board need not specifically address each of the guidelines in its determination (see, Matter of Waters v New York State Div. of Parole, 252 AD2d 759, 760, Iv denied 92 NY2d 812). While the Parole Board placed special emphasis upon the nature of the underlying crime and petitioner’s failure to accept responsibility or demonstrate remorse for the crime, upon our review of the record we are satisfied that the Parole Board took into consideration other appropriate factors, including petitioner’s achievements while incarcerated (see, People ex rel. Talley v Executive Dept., N. Y. State Div. of Parole, 232 AD2d 798, 799). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Parole Board’s discretionary decision. [711]*711Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered September 1, 1998 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner is currently serving a prison term of 15 years to life following his conviction of the crime of murder in the second degree. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of his request for parole release. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm.

It is well settled that the Parole Board need not specifically address each of the guidelines in its determination (see, Matter of Waters v New York State Div. of Parole, 252 AD2d 759, 760, Iv denied 92 NY2d 812). While the Parole Board placed special emphasis upon the nature of the underlying crime and petitioner’s failure to accept responsibility or demonstrate remorse for the crime, upon our review of the record we are satisfied that the Parole Board took into consideration other appropriate factors, including petitioner’s achievements while incarcerated (see, People ex rel. Talley v Executive Dept., N. Y. State Div. of Parole, 232 AD2d 798, 799). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Parole Board’s discretionary decision. [711]*711Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 710, 687 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-travis-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack